Infield fly rule after the fact

[prekowski]

Situation was runner on 1st and 2nd and one out. Batter hits routine popup to 2nd base and runners at first and 2nd hold close to their base, batter barely moves from batters box. Umpire fails to make infield fly rule call, 2nd baseman drops the ball and picks it up and gets force at 2nd and then throws to first to complete the double play. When other team voices protest that IFF should have been called, the umpire declares that's right, it should have been called and therefore I am calling it now, so only batter is out, double play is erased, and runners are allowed to return to their bases they held before the batted ball. When defensive team argues to the ump that he did not call IFF during the play, ump responds with yes, but that he is calling it now (on dead ball).
Protest was lodged immediately and recorded in scorebook at time. Who has an opinion on whether the protest should be upheld.

[RKBUmp]

Called or not it was an IFF situation and the umpire was correct in applying it after the fact and returning the runners put in jeopardy by the non call back on base.

Unless NCAA has changed their ruling, they do not allow the IFF to be called after the fact. The umpire must call it at the time of the play.

[prekowski]

Question for RKBUmp who says: Called or not it was an IFF situation and the umpire was correct in applying it after the fact and returning the runners put in jeopardy by the non call back on base.

Unless NCAA has changed their ruling, they do not allow the IFF to be called after the fact. The umpire must call it at the time of the play.

These two seem contradictory. On one hand it says it was right to make call after the fact but then says NCAA requires it to be called at the time of play and does not allow after the fact. Please clarify what is meant here.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by prekowski

Question for RKBUmp who says: Called or not it was an IFF situation and the umpire was correct in applying it after the fact and returning the runners put in jeopardy by the non call back on base.

Unless NCAA has changed their ruling, they do not allow the IFF to be called after the fact. The umpire must call it at the time of the play.

These two seem contradictory. On one hand it says it was right to make call after the fact but then says NCAA requires it to be called at the time of play and does not allow after the fact. Please clarify what is meant here.

I'm pretty sure that what is meant is that under the NCAA rule code, an IFF must be called at the time and can not be retroactively applied. In other words, unlike other codes, the IFF is called by the umpires and is not "in effect" when it occurs.

ASA and NFHS rules stipulate that the IFF is in effect when it occurs and if it is not called by the umpires, the IFF situation still existed and therefore the umpires can retroactively make the call, correcting their error in not making the call.

[prekowski]

Please refer me to the rule and section of the 2016 ASA book which states what you just said, which is, the IFF is in effect as of the time it occurs and not at the time it is called. Thank You.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by prekowski

Please refer me to the rule and section of the 2016 ASA book which states what you just said, which is, the IFF is in effect as of the time it occurs and not at the time it is called. Thank You.

ASA partly because 8-2-I just says declared, not immediate, not in flight, etc. and partly 10-3-C.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by prekowski

Question for RKBUmp who says: Called or not it was an IFF situation and the umpire was correct in applying it after the fact and returning the runners put in jeopardy by the non call back on base.

Unless NCAA has changed their ruling, they do not allow the IFF to be called after the fact. The umpire must call it at the time of the play.

These two seem contradictory. On one hand it says it was right to make call after the fact but then says NCAA requires it to be called at the time of play and does not allow after the fact. Please clarify what is meant here.

This is because an NCAA umpire would not screw up and forget to call it. If they don't call it ... it's because they don't deem it to be an infield fly.

Other rule codes, if the umpire knows he screwed up ... he not only has the ability to fix it, he has the RESPONSIBILITY to fix it.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

This is because an NCAA umpire would not screw up and forget to call it. ....

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by prekowski

Situation was runner on 1st and 2nd and one out. Batter hits routine popup to 2nd base and runners at first and 2nd hold close to their base, batter barely moves from batters box. Umpire fails to make infield fly rule call, 2nd baseman drops the ball and picks it up and gets force at 2nd and then throws to first to complete the double play. When other team voices protest that IFF should have been called, the umpire declares that's right, it should have been called and therefore I am calling it now, so only batter is out, double play is erased, and runners are allowed to return to their bases they held before the batted ball. When defensive team argues to the ump that he did not call IFF during the play, ump responds with yes, but that he is calling it now (on dead ball).
Protest was lodged immediately and recorded in scorebook at time. Who has an opinion on whether the protest should be upheld.

No apparent basis for a protest being upheld.

Neither runner can be forced out and apparently did not advance.

If the runner who started on 2nd (R1) had advanced to 3rd, she stays there.
If the runner who started on 1st (R2) had reached 2nd without a tag, she stays there.

[BlueDevilRef]

+1's for above. It's still a live ball but it's designed to prevent exactly what happened with the cheap double play. Umpire was right to call it retroactively.

[chapmaja]

The rule code isn't mentioned, but I have to agree with the other comments. Umpires made is a mistake not calling it, and as a result of their error, they put the offense in jeopardy. The rule is still the rule even if it is not called by the umpire. The rule doesn't say the infield fly is in effect when it is called by the umpire. It says it is in effect when there are less than 2 outs and first and second, or first second and third bases are occupied. This wording in fact allows for an "after the fact" application of the rule.

I would even go so far as to say the offense, had the correct call not been made, would have had grounds for a protest for a misapplication of the rule.

[jmkupka]

Not necessarily... the "ordinary effort" aspect of the rule is what brings umpire's judgement into the discussion, and which could prevent the possibility of protest.

A gusty day can turn a can o'corn fly ball over F1's head into a nightmare to catch, but still recoverable enough to turn a double play. Some would reverse it to be IFF.
But if that same dropped ball became a "safe all around" due to a panicky F1, we'd say play on, despite DC's complaints.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Not necessarily... the "ordinary effort" aspect of the rule is what brings umpire's judgement into the discussion, and which could prevent the possibility of protest.

A gusty day can turn a can o'corn fly ball over F1's head into a nightmare to catch, but still recoverable enough to turn a double play. Some would reverse it to be IFF.
But if that same dropped ball became a "safe all around" due to a panicky F1, we'd say play on, despite DC's complaints.

My comment was based on the original posting, which seemed to indicate that the pop up was routine, and as such the IFF would be in effect.

Where the protestability part would come in if the umpires failed to apply the rule on a situation where it was clear (and maybe they even admit), they didn't call it and in their judgment it was a routine play.

I find it hard to believe a UIC would not uphold a protest if it was a calm day and the popup went to a player who had to move minimally to make a catch, even if the umpires don't admit it was a can o corn play. This would be a situation where the UIC needs to make a decision based on as much information as he/she has at the time.

I had a similar situation to what you mentioned earlier this season. I did not call and IFF because the level of play (12 U) and the fact it was a 30 mph wind that night. Off the bat it appeared to be a routine pop up to 2nd, but based on the conditions, the ball kept carrying away from the fielder who had to try diving to make the catch. The DC did approach me asking why an IFF wasn't called. My explanation was simple. Due to the conditions it a routine play, so the IFF was not called. (It was a play where the runners all advanced one base anyway)

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by prekowski

Situation was runner on 1st and 2nd and one out. Batter hits routine popup to 2nd base and runners at first and 2nd hold close to their base, batter barely moves from batters box. Umpire fails to make infield fly rule call, 2nd baseman drops the ball and picks it up and gets force at 2nd and then throws to first to complete the double play. When other team voices protest that IFF should have been called, the umpire declares that's right, it should have been called and therefore I am calling it now, so only batter is out, double play is erased, and runners are allowed to return to their bases they held before the batted ball. When defensive team argues to the ump that he did not call IFF during the play, ump responds with yes, but that he is calling it now (on dead ball).
Protest was lodged immediately and recorded in scorebook at time. Who has an opinion on whether the protest should be upheld.

Under the definition of an infield fly, the umpire SHALL have declared the ball an infield fly (based on the description provided). When he/she failed to do so, his mistake put the offense in jeopardy.

[prekowski]

Boy how quickly some get their hackles up to defend their position, instead of just taking an objective view. My point about “declared” being the apparent objective rule, has now become unchallenged by fact (only by opinion) since you have had several opportunities to point out specifically where it says in black and white in the rule book, your assertion, that an IFF is as it happens versus when it was declared. I must therefore assume you could not find it in the book (nor could I), that it does not exist, it is just a made up extrapolation by someone of the rulebook that is unwritten. And it is interesting how a person, who cannot objectively back up his assertion in black and white, can make such an irrefutable statement such as “you are wrong”. If I am wrong in the above, back it up with a cite of the rule that makes it cut and dry about your assertion.
While it is nice that you have some hypothetical play in some guide book that is not part of the official rule book, it is irrelevant. And even your hypothetical example, that indeed may have been an actual ruling from an actual called play in an actual game, (and I don’t dispute it did actually happen, but it is quite irrelevant), it still did not even come close to backing up your assertion that IFF is a fact when it happens, not when it is declared. By the way, even if it is some official guidebook put out by ASA, it is not part of the rulebook, the ASA official rulebook is the guiding “law”, not some compendium of historical rulings made in games. If it were referenced in the ASA rulebook something like, “and the Official play ruling by the National Umpire Staff is an appendix to this book and shall be considered part of this official rulebook” then I would tend to agree with you. But like I said, even your copy and paste did not back up your assertion, it only proved an umpire “can indeed” attempt to rectify a situation of a call or non-call. Even your example was a compromise, where both the offensive and defensive team still had a legit argument after the fact. The offensive coach’s argument is, you took a run off the board for me because even if the IFF had been called, our runner was entitled to advance on a dropped ball and only can be put out by a tag (no force in effect). The defensive coach has a legit argument against the compromise call because they realized it was not an IFF because it was not declared (assuming it did not meet the IFF criterion since it was not declared), and they should have been able to have the force of that runner at home. Since it was not mentioned in the example, no way of knowing it but they even had a legit shot for another out with an additional force at third. It did not give that detail so there is no way to know if they even attempted and succeeded at an additional out at third. Furthermore, how many ASA umpires in all the leagues even know about your reference book, let alone use it as a guide in settling protests. I can tell you for a fact, the umpires in the leagues I have played in have only been required to review the official ASA rulebook to get certified under ASA, not required to be versed in the compendium of historical rulings.
This exercise has been helpful and I have withdrawn my protest but only for the reason outlined in R10-3-C. i.e. the umpire has the prerogative to make the ruling after the fact. Therefore I agree that a protest has little or no chance of prevailing, because ultimately even after the fact, the umpire can change the call even on an IFF, and that after the fact ruling is just another judgment call empowered to the umpires, no matter how good or bad that judgment may be. Even your so called slam dunk of “ordinary effort” is a subjective determination that on some plays, a poll of 100 individual umpires could come up with 50 saying it could have been caught with ordinary effort and 50 saying it could not have been caught with ordinary effort. And neither one could be proved to be wrong because there is no detailed definition of ordinary effort. Bottom line is, the definition of IFF in the book is ambiguous and it is up to the umpires discretion after the fact on how to apply R10-3-c. And the objective definitions in the rule book could lead you to determine either to apply it retroactively or not apply it. It is still a judgment. One thing is clear on the intent of the rule is, it is intended to be declared verbally while the play is happening to advise both offense and defense of the situation, and it is not the intent of the rule to apply it after the fact.
Good debate and I did learn something from it. Thanks.